Madras High Court
Mr.M.Veeran vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.1664, 1665, 8861 and 8862of 2018
(1)Crl.OP(MD)No.3522 of 2018:-
Mr.M.Veeran : Petitioner/A1
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai.
(Crime No.109 of 2012) : R1/Complainant
2.Mrs.S.Vijayakumari : R2/De-facto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to
the charge sheet in CC No.605 of 2014 on the file of the
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, in Crime No.109 of 2012
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as
illegal as against the petitioner alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For 1st Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
(2)Crl.OP(MD)No.19490 of 2018:-
1.Kasiammal
2.Chandran @ Chandrasekar
3.Loganathan : Petitioners/A2, A3 and A6
Vs.
1.State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.109 of 2012) : R1/Complainant
2.S.Vijayakumari : R2/De-facto complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to
the charge sheet in CC No.605 of 2014 on the file of the
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, in Crime No.109 of 2012
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as
illegal as against the petitioners alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed seeking quashment of
the case in CC No.605 of 2014 on the file of the Additional
Mahila Court, Madurai, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant is one S.Vijayakumari and her
husband name is Senthilathipan and her husband was having
properties situated in Nakkalapatti village, Matharai,
Usilampatti Taluk, as found in the complaint. Because of
the difference of opinion between the husband and wife,
they were living separately for sometime. The first accused
namely M.Veeranan is the brother-in-law of her husband and
his sister was one Kasiammal. Kasiammal is the wife of the
first accused. After the marriage, they were living in
Trichy. After retirement from the Police Department, the
first accused is living in Usilampatti. Right from the
beginning, taking advantage of the difference of opinion
between the husband and wife, the first accused was aiming
to grab the property. In 1999, Senthilathipan died. After
the death of the above said Sentilathipan, the creditors of
her husband, demanded return of money. So for that, they
made some arrangement to lease the property of 2 acres and
67 cents in favour of Kasiammal. Later, they also sold 26
cents to him. On knowing the above said sale, the accused
persons and her wife and children were making trouble. The
house property was also soled to one Mekkaraj. Again they
made a trouble. One Mayandi was later became the mortgagee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
of the above said 2 acres 56 cents. The accused persons
also made trouble to the above said Mayandi. They hatched
conspiracy, by which they created a sale deed as if
Sentilathipan executed a sale agreement in favour of A1
dated 07/04/1998 for Rs.80,000/-. It was an unregistered
sale agreement. Based upon which, a suit in O.S No.12 of
2005 has been filed. After the death of the above said
Sentilathipan, they also managed to obtain the ex-parte
decree. In pursuance of the above said ex-parte decree, the
sale deed was also got to be obtained in EP No.9 of 2008.
So, trouble arose between them. In the above said
circumstances, on 18/03/2012, they have also criminally
intimidated by the above said accused persons. When the
above said decree was brought to their notice, they have
also filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
That was dismissed. Against which, CRP(MD)No.2003 of 2011
was filed and it is also pending before this court. Stating
that all the accused persons conspired together and they
created a forged sale agreement and upon which, they have
also obtained an ex-parte decree, the de-facto complainant
has filed the complaint. Based upon which, the
investigation has also undertaken and final report has also
been filed making allegations against all the accused
persons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
3.Seeking quashment of the criminal case, A1, A2, A3
and A6 have filed these criminal original petitions.
4.Heard both sides.
5.It is contended on the part of the petitioners that
now the suit has been restored to file and is pending
before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Usilampatti. In pursuance of the order passed by this court
in C.R.P(MD)No.2003 of 2011, dated 25/09/2019, unless the
requirement of section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C is complied,
the police has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint,
investigate the matter and file a final report. For that
purpose, they would rely upon the judgment of this court
reported in the case of R.Ganesan Vs. Manipillai @
Govindassamy (2020(3) MWN (Cr.) 341). But I am afraid that
this judgment will support the case of the petitioner. Even
though, it has been stated that section 340 Cr.P.C is to be
complied before lodging the prosecution for the offence
under section 193 IPC, the facts are entirely different.
In that case, there was a collusive decree between the
parties to the suit in O.S No.52 of 2009. Finding that it
was a collusive decree by making enquiry under section 340
Cr.P.C, this court has directed the Deputy Registrar to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
lodge the complaint and here, it is the case of the de-
facto complainant that the dispute Will was forged even
before it was presented before the concerned Court namely
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. So
according to the 2nd respondent, this point has clarified by
the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case
of Iqbal Sigh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and
another [2005 SCC (Cri) 1101}, wherein it has been
specifically clarified that when a particular document is
produced to the court and if forger is committed, when the
document lies in the custody of the court, then only bar
under section 195(1)(b)(ii) will be attracted. If the
document was forged before it is presented to the court,
then the bar will not be attracted and this judgment has
also been clarified by subsequent judgments. So the
petitioner cannot be permitted to argue that since the
document lies in the hands of the concerned civil court,
unless and until a finding has been recorded by the civil
court by exercising the jurisdiction under section 340
Cr.P.C no police complaint can be entertained, investigated
the matter, is not at all acceptable. So the legal ground
which has been raised by the petitioner falls to the ground
as not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
6.Coming to the facts of the case, as mentioned
earlier, it is a specific case of the 2nd respondent that
her husband's signature has been forged in the sale
agreement and has been presented before the court, by
suppressing true and correct address of the legal heirs of
her husband, an ex-parte decree has been obtained. Prima
facie material has been collected by the Investigating
Officer. But perusal of the entire investigation file shows
that materials have been collected and the disputed
signature of the above said Sentilathipan was sent to the
forensic science lab for handwriting expert opinion. From
the opinion of the handwriting expert, it is seen that the
disputed document was not signed by the above said
Senthilathipan. When such a prima facie material is
available, quashment of the proceedings is not permissible
under law.
7.Even though, it is the contention on the part of the
accused 1, 2, 3 and 6 that only bald allegation has been
made against them, the main allegation is only against A1,
for which the petitioners are not involved cannot be taken
into account. Whether there was a conspiracy between the
accused persons, is a matter for trial. Since sufficient
materials have been collected, I am of the considered view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
that this is not the fittest case to quash the proceedings
not only in respect of 2,3 and 6, but against A1 also.
8.In the result, these criminal original petitions are
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
07.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
Note: In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
To,
1.The Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3522 and 19490 of 2018
07/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
